To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Among such theories is that which proposes a swoon in the place of the death of Christ. It holds that Christ did not die on the cross, but merely swooned away, and remained in that condition for a considerable length of time. The authentic books of the New Testament testify that Christ really died; they record the fact of Christ’s death. Against this fact is opposed the theory of the swoon. It is theory against fact. The reasonable man rejects the theory of the swoon and accepts the fact of the death. The theory, moreover, is absurd. It offers no explanation of the scourging, of the crowning with thorns, of the carrying of the cross, of the draught of vinegar and gall, of the three hours of agony on the cross. The human being who can pass through such tortures and live has never lived on this earth and never will. The theory of the swoon offers no explanation of the conduct of the soldiers. They had been sent to break the limbs of the crucified. When they came to Christ, they found Him dead. Instead of breaking His legs, they pierced His side with a lance. Had Christ been in a swoon, this wound alone would have produced death. The theory defeats itself; it has too many facts to explain away, none of which it attempts to explain, except the one fact of the death. At the most, the entire length of the swoon is less than forty-eight hours. The interval is entirely too short for such a restoration as would permit a man to move about without assistance; yet, immediately after His Resurrection, Christ went about among His disciples, and never did He depend on others for assistance. The theory of the swoon breaks down under the weight of the facts recorded by the sacred writers.
The advocates of the vision theory maintain that the Resurrection of Christ was merely a vision, a fancy built by the active imagination of Mary Magdalen. The theory is built on the fact that Mary was the first to see the Risen Christ. The foolishness of the theory appears in its strange confusion of first with only. The fact that Mary was the first to see Christ after His Resurrection is not an argument that she was the only one to see Him risen. The same authority which relates that Mary saw Him first, relates that others saw Him. Saint Paul tells the Corinthians that he learned from those who were witnesses that the Risen Christ was seen by as many as five hundred at one time. It is hardly possible that so many should be the victims of their own over-active imaginations at the same time. Yet, if these and all the rest who saw the risen Christ saw only a vision, the advocates of the theory would have to account for the mircle of the vision. It is as easy or as difficult to account for one miracle as for another. The advocates of the vision theory simply substitute one miracle for another—a foolish procedure, and one, which in no way, can shake the testimony in favor of the fact of the Resurrection.
Opponents of the fact of the Resurrection expect to get rid of it by proposing the absurd theory that the Apostles s'tole the body of Christ from the tomb. These theorists endow the Apostles with a courage which is positively denied by eye-witnesses. The Apostles were so cowardly that they ran from the soldiers who came to arrest their Master. Peter carried his cowardice so far as to deny Christ. It takes a very lively imagination to picture these men coming in the dead of night to a tomb well guarded by Roman soldiers, and stealing the body. Especially .difficult and dangerous would have been such an undertaking, since

Among such theories is that which proposes a swoon in the place of the death of Christ. It holds that Christ did not die on the cross, but merely swooned away, and remained in that condition for a considerable length of time. The authentic books of the New Testament testify that Christ really died; they record the fact of Christ’s death. Against this fact is opposed the theory of the swoon. It is theory against fact. The reasonable man rejects the theory of the swoon and accepts the fact of the death. The theory, moreover, is absurd. It offers no explanation of the scourging, of the crowning with thorns, of the carrying of the cross, of the draught of vinegar and gall, of the three hours of agony on the cross. The human being who can pass through such tortures and live has never lived on this earth and never will. The theory of the swoon offers no explanation of the conduct of the soldiers. They had been sent to break the limbs of the crucified. When they came to Christ, they found Him dead. Instead of breaking His legs, they pierced His side with a lance. Had Christ been in a swoon, this wound alone would have produced death. The theory defeats itself; it has too many facts to explain away, none of which it attempts to explain, except the one fact of the death. At the most, the entire length of the swoon is less than forty-eight hours. The interval is entirely too short for such a restoration as would permit a man to move about without assistance; yet, immediately after His Resurrection, Christ went about among His disciples, and never did He depend on others for assistance. The theory of the swoon breaks down under the weight of the facts recorded by the sacred writers.
The advocates of the vision theory maintain that the Resurrection of Christ was merely a vision, a fancy built by the active imagination of Mary Magdalen. The theory is built on the fact that Mary was the first to see the Risen Christ. The foolishness of the theory appears in its strange confusion of first with only. The fact that Mary was the first to see Christ after His Resurrection is not an argument that she was the only one to see Him risen. The same authority which relates that Mary saw Him first, relates that others saw Him. Saint Paul tells the Corinthians that he learned from those who were witnesses that the Risen Christ was seen by as many as five hundred at one time. It is hardly possible that so many should be the victims of their own over-active imaginations at the same time. Yet, if these and all the rest who saw the risen Christ saw only a vision, the advocates of the theory would have to account for the mircle of the vision. It is as easy or as difficult to account for one miracle as for another. The advocates of the vision theory simply substitute one miracle for another—a foolish procedure, and one, which in no way, can shake the testimony in favor of the fact of the Resurrection.
Opponents of the fact of the Resurrection expect to get rid of it by proposing the absurd theory that the Apostles s'tole the body of Christ from the tomb. These theorists endow the Apostles with a courage which is positively denied by eye-witnesses. The Apostles were so cowardly that they ran from the soldiers who came to arrest their Master. Peter carried his cowardice so far as to deny Christ. It takes a very lively imagination to picture these men coming in the dead of night to a tomb well guarded by Roman soldiers, and stealing the body. Especially .difficult and dangerous would have been such an undertaking, since